sustainability
Article
Impact Mechanism and Effect of Agricultural Land Transfer on
Agricultural Carbon Emissions in China: Evidence from
Mediating Effect Test and Panel Threshold Regression Model
Ying Tang * and Menghan Chen
Citation: Tang, Y.; Chen, M. Impact
Mechanism and Effect of Agricultural
Land Transfer on Agricultural
Carbon Emissions in China: Evidence
from Mediating Effect Test and Panel
Threshold Regression Model.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su142013014
Academic Editors: Lu Zhang, Bing
Kuang and Bohan Yang
Received: 1 September 2022
Accepted: 9 October 2022
Published: 11 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013014
School of Public Management, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, China
* Correspondence: tangying5440@163.com; Tel.: +86-15004041523
Abstract: In order to identify the mechanism and effect of agricultural land transfer on agricultural
carbon emissions, a study was conducted by analyzing the panel data of 30 provincial-level adminis-
trative regions from 2005 to 2019. Both the intermediary effect model and panel threshold regression
model are applied to test the correlation between agricultural land transfer and agricultural carbon
emissions, which provides some clarity on the mechanism of agricultural land transfer affecting
agricultural carbon emissions and its future trends. The research results are as follows. Firstly, agricul-
tural land transfer has a positive effect on agricultural carbon emissions, and agricultural factor input
plays a mediating role between agricultural land transfer and agricultural carbon emissions. More
specifically, the input of agricultural chemical elements has a positive impact on agricultural carbon
emissions, while the input of agricultural machinery elements has a negative impact on agricultural
carbon emissions. Secondly, under the threshold constraint of the urbanization level, the relationship
between agricultural land transfer and agricultural carbon emissions is characterized by an inverted
“U” shape, with a threshold value of 0.73. In view of these findings, more attention should be directed
to addressing the negative impact of agricultural land transfer on the ecological environment. Further-
more, various targeted measures should be taken to reduce the ecological risk carried by agricultural
land transfer, to increase the effort made on achieving the goals of agricultural carbon emission
reduction, and to promote the green and sustainable development of the agricultural industry.
Keywords: land use; carbon emissions; intermediary effect model; panel threshold model
1. Introduction
When it comes to global climate warming, a significant influencing factor for it is the
increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere due to the social and economic
activities of humans [1]. It is a consensus reached among the international community that
various measures must be taken possibly soon to reduce carbon emissions in response to
the ongoing global climate change. As the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases,
China has committed itself at the 75th United Nations General Assembly to increasing
the effort made to cut down on carbon emissions, with effective policies and measures
adopted to achieve the “double carbon” goal of carbon peak by 2030 and carbon neutrality
by 2060. To achieve this objective, what needs to happen first is to fully understand the
overall situation of carbon emissions across China. According to the relevant data, the
carbon emissions from agricultural production and land use change account for nearly one
fourth of the total [2]. As a large agricultural production country, China contributes about
29% to the total agricultural carbon emissions in Asia and roughly 12% to the total carbon
emissions worldwide [3]. Furthermore, it continues to increase at an annual rate of 5% on
average [4]. It is estimated that China’s agricultural carbon emissions will increase by 30%
by 2050 if there are no effective emission reduction measures taken. Obviously, agricultural
production contributes significantly to the total carbon emissions in China. Therefore, in
order to achieve the “double carbon” objective, it is essential to impose stringent control on
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 2 of 15

the carbon emissions arising from agricultural productions and other relevant activities.
At the same time, it is necessary to promote the eco-friendly development of agricultural
productions according to the national agricultural green development scheme as part of
the 14th five-year plan, which requires the reduction in agricultural carbon emissions.
Under this context, there have been many studies conducted by academics on agricultural
carbon emissions.
In this respect, the focus of discussion is placed on the factors that affect the scale of
carbon emissions. It can be calculated by using the IPCC coefficient method [5], Kaya Porter
identity (KPI) method [6], carbon footprint method [7] or others. Having an incremental
effect on carbon emission changes, economic scale is the main contributor to increasing
carbon emissions [8,9]. Specifically, carbon emissions can be significantly affected by the
increase in manufacturing output value and international trade output value in macroeco-
nomic indicators [10]. Furthermore, population size and energy structure are another two
important factors in the increase in carbon emissions [11]. The slight changes in the soil
carbon cycle may also have a significant impact on the concentration of carbon monoxide
in the atmosphere. However, the current technical capacity is insufficient to quantitatively
allocate carbon use [12]. The increase in carbon emissions has detrimental effects on the
terrestrial climate, as manifested mainly by temperature rise [13]. The utilization inten-
sity of fossil fuels such as coal should be restricted [14], and the carbon emissions from
economic activities should be reduced progressively through the popularization of clean
energy and technologies, such as solar cells, biomass, hydropower and thermoelectric con-
version [15,16]. Apart from that, the scale of carbon emissions should be limited in the form
of trading licenses [17]. In China, agricultural carbon emissions are usually characterized
by a three-stage change of “up—down—up”, and there is a difference between the west
and the east [18]. The areas with high total emissions concentrate in those provinces heavily
reliant on the agricultural industry [19]. The total carbon emissions are jointly affected
by the development of world economy and society and policy intensity [20]. There is an
inverted “U” relationship existing between agricultural carbon emissions and economic
growth [21], and a “U” relationship existing between environmental regulation and carbon
emission efficiency [22]. In addition, the LMDI model [23], Kaya identity [24], STIRPAT
model [25], geographical weighted regression model [26] and other methods can be used
to conduct quantitative analysis on the influencing factors in agricultural carbon emissions.
The results show that agricultural carbon emissions can be significantly reduced by agricul-
tural production efficiency, agricultural structure, agricultural population size, agricultural
technology progress and other factors [27,28].
As a market-oriented means to improve the efficiency of rural land resource allocation,
rural land transfer relates to society, economy, ecology and more. However, at present, the
academic research of agricultural land transfer focuses mainly on its social and economic
effects [29–31], and there is little research on the ecological effects of agricultural land
transfer. At the same time, to meet the “double carbon” goal and to promote agricultural
green development, more attention should be paid to exploring how agricultural land
transfer affects agricultural carbon emissions. With the development of agricultural land
transfer market and the increase in agricultural land transfer, agricultural land circulation
has made significant impact on agricultural ecology [32]. Therefore, it is of much practical
significance to analyze how to reduce the ecological risk posed by agricultural land circula-
tion while promoting the moderate-scale practice of agricultural land circulation. Based
on the panel data of 30 Chinese provinces from 2005 to 2019, an intermediary effect model
and a threshold model are constructed in this study based on theoretical analysis, so as to
test the impact path and mechanism of agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon
emissions. Furthermore, the hypothesis is verified, which provides a theoretical reference
for effectively promoting agricultural land transfer and reducing agricultural emissions.
The contributions of this study are as follows. Firstly, an intermediary effect model
is adopted to test the impact mechanism of agricultural land transfer on agricultural
carbon emission in China. Secondly, an analysis is conducted as to the constraints on the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 3 of 15

relationship between agricultural land transfer and agricultural carbon emissions. Lastly,
policy implications are indicated based on the empirical results for the better coordination
between agricultural land transfer and agricultural carbon emission.

2. Agricultural Land Transfer and Agricultural Carbon Emission

2.1. Agricultural Land Transfer and Agricultural Production Input
In practice, the specific input mode of production as adopted by the agricultural pro-
duction subject is affected by the resource endowment of factors, market price and product
demand, which leads to a technology selection bias based on labor-saving technology
(such as agricultural machinery) or land-saving technology (agricultural chemicals) [33,34].
Under the traditional urban–rural dual registered residence system and the policy that
prohibits the circulation of agricultural land, the abundance of rural labor and the scarcity
of agricultural land have jointly contributed to the resource endowment characteristics
in China. Given a huge national population, land saving technology plays a vital role in
improving agricultural production efficiency to make up for the defects of agricultural
land resource endowment, which makes China’s input of agricultural chemicals far higher
than the world average. In recent years, the central government of China has issued a
series of policies to promote the orderly circulation of agricultural land, effectively keep
the appropriate scale of land resources, and promote the efficiency of agricultural section
and increase income of farmers. Under the guidance of the national macro policies, the
transfer of agricultural land has developed rapidly. According to the statistics from the
Ministry of agriculture and rural sector, there was 35.9 million hm2 of agricultural land
in China at the end of 2018. Agricultural land is transferred among different subjects,
accounting for 48.56% of the total. With the development of agricultural land transfer and
the breaking of the urban-rural separation pattern in China, the magnitude of rural labor
migration and non-agriculturalization continues to improve, which has a significant impact
on the factor endowment structure of agricultural production in China [35,36]. For the
main body of agricultural land transfer, the increase in agricultural land stock reduces the
scarcity and relative price of agricultural land resources, while the continuous outflow of
rural populations leads to the relative increase in labor costs. Under this context, the main
body of production will adopt labor saving technologies, that is, to increase the input of
agricultural machinery and reduce the input of land saving elements. As for the subject
who transfers out of agricultural land, agricultural land resources will become scarcer.
Therefore, the production subject will adopt land saving technology, that is, to increase the
use of agricultural chemicals for the improved output level of agricultural land.
Under the agricultural land transfer policy, the agricultural land transfer in the land
market has become increasingly active, thus leading to the optimization and reorganization
of agricultural land resources. Through the marginal output equilibrium effect of land
market [37], agricultural land will be transferred from the farmers with low production
efficiency to major grain growers, professional agricultural enterprises and other modern
agricultural production organizations with high production efficiency. In this way, the
efficiency of agricultural land utilization can be improved. For the entities who transfer in
agricultural land, the expansion of their business may increase the demand for agricultural
labor. However, due to the insufficient elasticity of labor supply due to the transfer of
agricultural land, it is difficult to meet the demand for agricultural labor after production
scale expansion, which will motivate the production entity to invest more in agricultural
machinery and equipment for productions, thus further reducing the input of agricultural
chemicals [38]. In addition, the transferred entity will concentrate to connect the scattered
agricultural land, which is effective in reducing the land fragmentation caused by the
decentralized management of farmers. This is conducive to reducing agricultural chemicals
input. In addition, since the transferred entity is advantageous in agricultural production
capacity and experience, it is easier to reduce the use of traditional agricultural chemicals
by applying green and low-risk production technologies [39]. On the contrary, for the
entities who transfer out agricultural land, the transfer of agricultural land has reduced
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 4 of 15

the management scale of agricultural land for each entity, which moves the labor force
from agricultural production to non-agricultural activities [40]. Therefore, agricultural
production has the typical characteristics of concurrent operation. For these farmers, the
loss of labor makes it easier to invest more agricultural chemicals for maximum profits. In
addition, the stability and duration of agricultural land property rights will have a more
significant impact on the investment behavior of farmers, according to the property rights
theory. Due to the unstable and short-term agricultural real estate rights, farmers tend to
show shortsightedness in their investments. That is to say, farmers, as “economic people”,
will reject the long-term investment in agricultural land, such as building irrigation and
drainage facilities, improving soil quality, etc. Instead, they choose to invest a large amount
of agricultural chemicals and make other short-term investments for quick profits [41]. By
improving agricultural land circulation policies, the stability of agricultural land property
rights can be enhanced, which will motivate farmers to abandon short-term investment for
long-term investment [42,43].

2.2. Agricultural Production Input and Agricultural Carbon Emission

Depending on the exact form and function of agricultural input elements, the agricul-
tural element input in agricultural land use activities can be divided into two categories:
agricultural chemical element input and agricultural machinery element input. For a long
time, the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and other agricultural chemical elements in
agricultural production activities has played a major role in improving the nutrient content
in agricultural soil, reducing the yield loss of crops caused by diseases, insect pests and
weeds, improving grain yield and promoting the growth of agricultural economy [44,45].
Given the expanding scale of agricultural land management and the shortage of labor force,
the input of agricultural chemistry such as chemical fertilizer provides an effective solution
to ensuring grain output [46]. At the same time, the continuous use of agricultural chemi-
cals has also resulted in various issues including excessive carbon dioxide emissions [47],
which is more detrimental to the ecological environment. Among them, the contribution of
agricultural inputs to agricultural carbon emissions is most significant [48]. The production
and utilization of chemical fertilizers are the main factors affecting agricultural carbon
emissions [49,50]. Such agricultural chemicals such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides and
agricultural film account for about half of the total agricultural carbon emissions [51]. As for
the input of agricultural machinery, agricultural machinery technology has a substitution
effect on agricultural labor force, which improves the degree of specialization for agricul-
tural productions [52,53]. With the improvement of agricultural mechanization, large-scale
agricultural machinery gradually replaces the small, energy-intensive agricultural ma-
chinery in the traditional small-scale production, which to some extent curbs agricultural
carbon emissions. Meanwhile, the improved level of agricultural machinery utilization
significantly promotes the optimization and upgrading of industrial structure and enhances
the efficiency of agricultural production, thus reducing agricultural carbon emissions.
Based on the above analysis, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Agricultural land transfer can affect agricultural carbon emissions, with the input of
agricultural production materials as an intermediate variable in the impact of agricultural
land transfer on agricultural carbon emissions. Among the intermediate variables of agri-
cultural materials input, agricultural chemical factor has a promoting effect on agricultural
carbon emissions, while agricultural machinery factor input has an inhibitory effect on
agricultural carbon emissions.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Analytical Methods
(1) Mediating effect test. In order to verify the research hypothesis proposed in this study,
that is, agricultural land transfer affects agricultural carbon emissions by affecting the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 5 of 15

input of agricultural chemical elements, the stepwise regression equation is applied

to perform a mediating effect test. The design is expressed as follows [54,55]:

ln TCit = θ1 +c ln Fit +controlit +εit (1)

ln cpit = θ2 +a1 ln Fit +controlit +εit (2)

amit = θ2 +a2 ln Fit +controlit +εit (3)
ln TCit = θ3 +c0 ln Fit +b1 ln cpit + b2 amit + controlit +εit (4)
where ln TCit represents the interpreted variable of agricultural carbon emissions;
ln Fit indicates the explanatory variable of agricultural land transfer; agricultural
chemical factor input (ln cp) and agricultural machinery input (am) are intermediate
variable; controlit refers to the control variable, including agricultural financial level
(fsa), agricultural land resource endowment (area), agricultural population scale
(popu), agricultural output value structure (pvs), and agricultural planting structure
(ps); i,t represent different provinces and time, respectively; ε indicates a random
error term.
At the same time, it is considered by some scholars that this method has certain flaws,
who suggest using more accurate methods to conduct tests. For example, the bootstrap
program developed by Preacher and Hayes [56] not only shows higher test efficiency
for mediation effects, but also provides a variety of test program plug-ins for complex
models. For researchers, appropriate model plug-ins can be selected to suit their needs.
The reported results include the stepwise regression results and the confidence interval
of unbiased correction at the 95% significance level. If the confidence interval does not
contain 0, it indicates that the intermediary effect exists; otherwise, this effect is non-existent.
Therefore, the method as mentioned above is adopted in this study to further verify the
robustness of the results about mediating effect.
(2) Panel threshold model. There may be no linearity whether in the relationship between
agricultural land transfer and agricultural carbon emissions, or in the relationship
between other social and economic factors and agricultural carbon emissions. There-
fore, it is necessary to introduce a nonlinear adjustment mechanism to further explore
the relationship between agricultural land transfer and agricultural carbon emissions.
Herein, the panel threshold regression model proposed by Hansen [57] is adopted to
carry out the regression analysis of agricultural land transfer and agricultural carbon
emissions, with the urbanization level (the proportion of urban population in the
total population) as the threshold dependent variable. The panel threshold model is
expressed as follows:

ln TCit = β0 +α ln TCit +β1 ln Fit × I(urbanit ≤ η) + β2 ln Fit × I(urbanit > η) + controlit +εit (5)
where urban represents a threshold dependent variable; η indicates the threshold
value; I denotes the indicator function. In two scenarios, one being that the urbaniza-
tion level falls below the threshold value (urbanit ≤ η) and the other being that the
urbanization level exceeds the threshold value (urbanit > η), the impact of agricultural
land transfer on agricultural carbon emissions is β1 and β2 , respectively. The thresh-
old model can simultaneously estimate the threshold value of the urbanization level
and the slope value. The significance of the threshold effect was tested, that is, the
original hypothesis H0 ; β1 = β2 . If the original hypothesis is rejected, the alternative
hypothesis is accepted, that is, under different urbanization levels, the impact of
agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon emissions varies significantly.

3.2. Variable Definition and Data Source

(1) Explanatory variable: the explanatory variable used in this study is agricultural land
transfer, which refers to the transfer of land management rights to other farmers or
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 6 of 15

organizations by the farmers with land contract management rights in rural areas.
According to the existing research results, agricultural land transfer is mostly replaced
by cultivated land transfer indicators [58]. Therefore, the transfer area of household
contracted farmland in each province is used to represent the transfer of agricultural
land in each province as the explanatory variable of this study.
(2) Explained variable: the explained variable used in this study is agricultural carbon
emissions, with the narrow sense of agricultural (planting) carbon emissions as the
research object. It is defined as the carbon emissions generated during the use of
agricultural land, mainly including the carbon emissions generated during the use of
chemical fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural films and agricultural diesel, as well as the
carbon emissions generated during the irrigation and tillage of agricultural land [59].
The carbon emission accounting formula is expressed as:
n n
TC = ∑i=1 Oi = ∑i=1 qi × ρi (6)

where TC represents the total agricultural carbon emission, Oi indicates the car-
bon emission of each carbon emission form, qi denotes the quantity of each carbon
emission form, and ρi refers to the carbon emission coefficient of each form of car-
bon emissions. The coefficient values of this study are detailed in the research of
Ding (2019).
(3) Intermediate variable: agricultural materials input. The input of agricultural ma-
terials includes the input of agricultural chemical material and that of agricultural
machinery. Among them, the input of agricultural chemical elements includes various
agricultural chemicals, such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural films,
all of which are inputted by the agricultural production entities in the process of crop
production. Considering the difficulty in measuring the total input of agricultural
chemical material, it can be found out that chemical fertilizer is one of the most impor-
tant input factors in agricultural production in China, which plays a significant role in
promoting grain production [60]. In the meantime, it also contributes significantly to
the total agricultural carbon emissions. Therefore, the ratio of fertilizer application
to crop planting area in each province is adopted to represent the input of agricul-
tural chemical elements. Referred to as the agricultural machinery and equipment
invested by farmers and other production entities in the process of crop production,
agricultural machinery input can be used to indicate the level of mechanization in the
process of agricultural production. In the existing research results, the total power
of agricultural machinery is mostly used to represent the input of agricultural ma-
chinery. However, this index is not applicable to accurately indicate the input level
of agricultural machinery. This is due to the difficulty in collecting the data on the
total power of agricultural machinery at the level of farmers and the fact that the cross
regional service of agricultural machinery and the socialized service of agricultural
machinery are common in China. Therefore, the total power of regional agricultural
machinery is unfit to fully reflect the input of agricultural machinery. Therefore, the
comprehensive agricultural machine utilization rate of crop cultivation and harvest
as used by the Ministry of Agriculture is adopted in this study to measure the level
of agricultural mechanization. This index is the weighted average value of machine
cultivation rate, machine sowing rate and machine yield.
(4) Other variables: considering that agricultural carbon emissions may be affected by
other factors, other control variables are also introduced into this study, including:
1 Agricultural fiscal level: Agricultural finance refers to the government’s expendi-
ture on agricultural production activities. The higher the level of expenditure, the
more conducive it will be to improving agricultural technology. Furthermore, it has
a significant impact on agricultural carbon emissions. In the existing studies, the
proportion of fiscal expenditure spent on supporting agriculture to the total agricul-
tural production value is often used to indicate the agricultural financial level. Since
the definition of agricultural carbon emissions in this study is specific to planting
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 7 of 15

carbon emissions, the ration of the total output value of the planting industry to fiscal
expenditure on supporting agriculture is used in this study to indicate the agricultural
financial level of each province. 2 Agricultural land resource endowment: Due to
the differences in the amount of agricultural land resources in various regions, there
are variations in the status and scale of agricultural production between different
regions. Consequently, there are significant differences in agricultural carbon emis-
sions between various regions. Therefore, the per capita cultivated land area of the
planting industry in each province is used in this study to indicate the endowment
of agricultural land resources in each province. 3 Agricultural population scale:
The scale of agricultural population tends to have immediate effects on the regional
structure and scale of agricultural production, thus affecting the amount of regional
agricultural carbon emissions. Therefore, the number of employees in the planting
industry in each province is used in this study to indicate the size of agricultural
population. 4 Structure of agricultural output value: It is expressed as the ratio of
the output value of planting industry to the total output value of agriculture, forestry,
animal husbandry and fishery. 5 Agricultural planting structure: It is indicated by
the ratio of the sown area of grain crops to the total sown area of crops.
The provincial panel data from 2005 to 2019 are selected for use in this study. Due
to the serious lack of data in Tibet, it is excluded from the sample. Finally, 30 provincial
administrative regions in mainland China are selected as the research objects. The sample
data are sourced from the “China Statistical Yearbook”, “China Rural Statistical Yearbook”,
“China rural operation and management statistical annual report”, and “China Agricultural
Machinery Industry Yearbook” of the corresponding years. In order to eliminate the impact
of variable dimensions and ensure the stability of the data, logarithmic processing is carried
out for agricultural land transfer, agricultural carbon emission and agricultural chemical
element input. Table 1 lists the descriptive statistics of variables.

Table 1. The descriptive statistics of variables.

Variable Name Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Agricultural land transfer (lnF) 12.63 1.38 8.70 15.34
Agricultural carbon emissions (lnTC) 5.27 1.01 2.44 6.77
Agricultural chemical element input (lnCP) 5.82 0.36 4.72 6.68
Agricultural machinery input (am) 0.50 0.24 0.02 1.14
Financial level of agriculture (fsa) 0.39 0.56 5.72 1.74
Agricultural land resource endowment (area) 1.09 0.77 0.30 4.79
Agricultural population size (population) 4.92 3.59 0.15 16.98
Agricultural output value structure (pvs) 0.52 0.09 0.34 0.75
Agricultural planting structure (ps) 0.65 0.13 0.33 0.97

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Regression Analysis
(1) Benchmark regression. Table 2 shows the baseline regression results obtained for the
impact of agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon emissions. In the absence
of control variables, the simple regression of agricultural carbon emissions is per-
formed only on the transfer of agricultural land, with the estimation coefficient being
significantly positive at the 1% statistical level. When control variables are introduced
and fixed effects are considered for regression estimation, the estimated coefficient of
agricultural land transfer remains significantly positive at the 1% statistical level. It is
indicated that agricultural land transfer has a significant positive effect on agricultural
carbon emissions, as does the endowment of agricultural land resources and the size of
agricultural population. Conversely, the level of agricultural finance and agricultural
planting structure has a significant negative effect on agricultural carbon emissions.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 8 of 15

Table 2. Results of baseline regression.

lnF Fsa Area Popu Pvs Ps Constant R2

Without control 0.08 *** 4.84 ***
0.23
variables (0.01) (0.13)
Add control 0.10 *** −0.17 *** 0.16 *** 0.06 *** 0.13 −0.79 *** 4.77 ***
0.51
variables (0.01) (0.01) (0.03) (0.01) (0.20) (0.13) (0.15)
Note: *** is significant at the level of 1%, and Se values are in brackets.

(2) Intermediary effect test: SPSS 25.0 software and process 4.0 macro program plug-in
are applied to conduct regression analysis on the sample data. The results are detailed
as follows which are showed in Table 3. In regression equation 1, the impact coefficient
of agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon emissions is 0.29, which passes the
test at a significance level of 1%. That is to say, agricultural land transfer has a signifi-
cant positive impact on agricultural carbon emissions. In the regression equation 2,
the influence coefficient of agricultural land transfer on agricultural chemical element
input is 0.03, which passes the test at the 5% significance level as well. That is to say,
agricultural land transfer has a significant positive impact on agricultural chemical
element input. In regression equation 3, the influence coefficient of agricultural land
transfer on agricultural machinery factor input is 0.063, which also passes the test at
the 1% significance level. That is to say, agricultural land transfer also has a significant
positive impact on agricultural machinery factor input. In regression equation 4,
the influence coefficient of agricultural land transfer, agricultural chemical element
input and agricultural machinery element input on agricultural carbon emissions is
0.30, 0.79 and −0.49, respectively, all of which pass the test at the 1% significance
level. That is to say, both agricultural land transfer and agricultural chemical element
input have a significant positive impact on agricultural carbon emissions. By contrast,
agricultural machinery element input has a significant negative impact on agricultural
carbon emissions.

Table 3. Intermediary effect test results of agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon emissions.

Regression Equation (1) Regression Equation (2) Regression Equation (3) Regression Equation (4)
Variables lnTC lnap Am lnTC
β t β t β t β t
15.24 *** 2.17 ** 0.06 0.30
lnF 0.29 (0.020) 0.03 (0.01) 8.60 *** 17.08 ***
(0.01) (0.02)
0.79
lnap 13.50 ***
(0.06)
am −0.49 (0.11) −4.30 ***
−0.70 −0.02 −0.05 −0.66
fsa −16.681 *** −0.78 −3.21 *** −18.25 ***
(0.04) (0.03) (0.02) (0.04)
0.15 −0.17 0.11 0.34
area 3.880 *** −5.91 *** 7.62 *** 8.99 ***
(0.04) (0.03) (0.02) (0.04)
15.655 *** −0.01 −0.01 0.14
popu 0.13 (0.01) −1.96 ** −3.01 *** 19.07 ***
(0.01) (0.00) (0.01)
−0.66 −0.84 0.27 −0.13
pvs −2.550 ** −4.37 *** 2.67 *** 0.58
(0.26) (0.19) (0.10) (0.23)
−0.53 −0.16 0.28 −0.27
ps −2.590 *** −1.04 3.56 *** −1.53
(0.21) (0.15) (0.08) (0.18)
R 0.90 0.40 0.69 0.93
R2 0.81 0.16 0.48 0.86
F 308.59 *** 13.96 *** 67.63 *** 349.05 ***
Note: **, and *** are significant at the level of 5%, and 1%, respectively, and Se values are in brackets.

From the above results, it can be concluded that agricultural land transfer exerts a
partial intermediary effect on agricultural carbon emissions by affecting agricultural ma-
terial input. Therefore, the first part of the research hypothesis proposed in this study is
supported. Moreover, agricultural chemical factor input exerts a positive effect on agri-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 9 of 15

cultural carbon emissions, while agricultural machinery factor input has a negative effect
on agricultural carbon emissions. Therefore, the second part of the research hypothesis
proposed in this study is also supported. In terms of control variables, the impact of
agricultural land resource endowment and agricultural population size on agricultural
carbon emissions passes the test at the significance level of 1%. Furthermore, the impact
coefficient is positive, indicating the promoting effect of agricultural land resource endow-
ment and agricultural population size on agricultural carbon emissions. As for the impact
of agricultural financial level on agricultural carbon emissions, it also passes the test at the
significance level of 1%. Furthermore, the impact coefficient is negative, which indicates
that to a certain extent the target of agricultural carbon emission reduction can be achieved
if the local government increases its support for agriculture and promotes the progress in
agricultural production technology.
In order to further verify the robustness of the intermediary effect, bootstrap is used to
repeatedly extract the sample data for 5000 times and the default 95% unbiased correction
interval is used to test the intermediary effect. The results are shown in Table 4. The confi-
dence interval is [0.25, 0.33] and [0.26, 0.33] for the total effect and direct effect, respectively.
The confidence interval is [0.01, 0.05] for the intermediary path of “agricultural land transfer
→ agricultural chemical element input → agricultural carbon emission”. The confidence
interval is [−0.05, −0.01] for the intermediate path of “agricultural land transfer → input of
agricultural machinery factors → agricultural carbon emissions”. The confidence interval
does not contain 0, which confirms the significance effect propagation paths.

Table 4. Bootstrap test results.

Effect Propagation Path Coefficient SE BootLLCI BootULCI

Total effect 0.29 0.02 0.25 0.33
Direct effect 0.30 0.02 0.26 0.33
agricultural land transfer → agricultural chemical
0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05
element input → agricultural carbon emission
agricultural land transfer → input of agricultural
−0.03 0.01 −0.05 −0.01
machinery factors → agricultural carbon emissions

4.2. Threshold Effect Test

Despite agricultural factor input verified as an important medium in the impact
of agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon emissions, the mechanism of this
impact may also be affected by other social and economic factors, which leads to a non-
linear relationship between them. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce a non-linear
mechanism into the model. There are plenty of research results showing an inverted
“U” type relationship between urbanization level and environmental pollution [61,62],
and agricultural land transfer has a significant impact on urbanization. Therefore, the
urbanization level is taken as a threshold dependent variable in this section to analyze the
impact of agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon emissions under the context of
different urbanization levels.
(1) Threshold estimate: In this study, Stata 17.0 is applied to repeatedly sample 500 times
with the Bootstrap method to test the threshold effect of explanatory variables. The
results are shown in Table 5. The urbanization level passes the single threshold test,
but the double threshold fails the significance test. At the same time, Figure 1 shows
the model likelihood ratio function diagram of the panel threshold model drawn
under a single threshold to verify the threshold estimate. The critical value of the LR
statistic is 7.35 at the significance level of 5%, and the LR value corresponding to the
threshold value of 0.73 falls below 7.35, which is consistent with the reality.
 value of the LR statistic is 7.35 at the significance level of 5%, and the LR value cor-
responding to the threshold value of 0.73 falls below 7.35, which is consistent with
the reality.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 Table 5. Threshold estimation test. 10 of 15

Number of 95% Confidence

F p 10% 5% 1% Threshold
Thresholds Interval
Table 5. Threshold
single estimation
44.85 * 0.082test. 42.03 50.27 70.61 0.73 [0.72, 0.75]
double 16.23 0.642 42.28 67.54 89.65 0.83 [0.63, 0.85]
Number of 95% Confidence
F p 10% 5% 1% Threshold
Thresholds Interval
Note: * is significant at the level of 10%.
single 44.85 * 0.082 42.03 50.27 70.61 0.73 [0.72, 0.75]
double 16.23 0.642 42.28 67.54 89.65 0.83 [0.63, 0.85]
Note: * is significant at the level of 10%.
150
100
LR Statistics
50
0

Figure 1. Threshold value and confidence interval of panel threshold model.

Figure 1. Threshold value and confidence interval of panel threshold model.
(2) Threshold regression results. The panel threshold model is applied to analyze the
(2) Threshold regression results. The panel threshold model is applied to analyze the
sample data, with the regression results listed in Table 6. According to the results of
sample data, with the regression results listed in Table 6. According to the results of
panel threshold regression, the impact of agricultural land transfer on agricultural
panel threshold
carbon regression,
emissions the impact
is constrained by theofthreshold
agricultural land transfer
of urbanization on agricultural
level. When urban
≤ 0.73, the impact coefficient of agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon
emissions is 0.06. Agricultural land transfer exerts a positive effect on agricultural
carbon emissions. Given the rapid development of rural land transfer, rural labor
will concentrate in cities and towns, which improves the urbanization level. At
the early stage of urbanization, rural surplus labor definitely increases agricultural
capital investment to offset the loss of economic benefits caused by the outflow
of agricultural labor, thus increasing agricultural carbon emissions. When urban
> 0.73, the impact coefficient of agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon
emissions is −0.06. This is suspected to be due to the fact that the development of
urbanization to a certain stage prompts the emergence of “anti-urbanization”, as
manifested in the flow of labor, capital and other factors back to the countryside,
thus improving the conditions of agricultural production and driving the progress in
agricultural production technology. In order to mitigate the negative external effects
of agricultural production on the ecological environment, the government will also
introduce the relevant environmental protection policies and regulations, which can
motivate agricultural workers to improve their awareness of green production and
increase the use of green and clean energy, thus comprehensively promoting the
shift from traditional agricultural production to the green and efficient production
characterized by “low input, high output and low pollution”. Ultimately, agricultural
carbon emissions are reduced. Based on the above research results, the impact of
agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon emissions shows an inverted “U”
relationship under the constraint of urbanization level, which rises first and then falls.
When the urbanization level exceeds a certain threshold, agricultural land transfer
exerts an inhibitory effect on agricultural carbon emissions.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 11 of 15

Table 6. Threshold regression results.

Variables lnTC Variables lnTC

0.06 *** pvs −0.24 **
lnF(urban ≤ η)
−0.01 −0.12
−0.06 *** ps −0.06
lnF(urban > η)
−0.02 −0.12
−0.14 *** 0.69 **
fsa constant
−0.01 −0.31
0.11 *** 0.69
area R2 -within
−0.02
0.05 *** 89.97
lnpopu F
−0.01
Note: **, and *** are significant at the level of 5%, and 1%.

5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

5.1. Conclusions
Based on China’s provincial panel data of agricultural land transfer and agricultural
carbon emissions from 2005 to 2019, the intermediary effect model is applied in this
study to test the impact path and transmission mechanism of agricultural land transfer on
agricultural carbon emissions. Furthermore, the panel threshold regression model is used
to empirically test the threshold effect of agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon
emissions. On this basis, the following conclusions are drawn:
(1) Agricultural land transfer can affect agricultural carbon emissions through agricul-
tural materials input. Specifically, agricultural chemical factor input has a positive
impact on agricultural carbon emissions (0.79), while agricultural machinery factor
input has a negative impact on agricultural carbon emissions (−0.49).
(2) The urbanization level exerts a significant single threshold effect on the impact of
agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon emissions. Under the threshold
constraint of urbanization level, the relationship between agricultural land transfer
and agricultural carbon emissions shows an inverted “U” shape. When the urban-
ization level falls below 0.73, agricultural land transfer exerts a promoting effect on
agricultural carbon emissions. When the urbanization level exceeds 0.73, the transfer
of agricultural land has an inhibitory effect on agricultural carbon emissions.

5.2. Policy Recommendations

(1) It is recommended to change the input structure of agricultural elements and reduce
the intensity of chemical elements utilization. According to the above research results,
the input of agricultural chemical elements can have a promoting effect on agricultural
carbon emissions, while the input of agricultural machinery elements can exert an
inhibiting effect on agricultural carbon emissions. Different management methods
will have an impact on the carbon emissions from agricultural land [63]. Imposing a
reasonable control on the input of agricultural chemical elements and improving the
level of agricultural mechanization can reduce agricultural carbon emissions. From
the perspective of the government, first, it is necessary to effectively regulate the use of
agricultural chemicals at the institutional level for ensuring the agricultural ecological
safety with institutional strength, including the formulation of relevant laws and
regulations to agricultural carbon emissions, the establishment of a monitoring mech-
anism for the quality of agricultural land ecological environment, the collection of
agricultural environmental taxes [64], and the increase in agricultural carbon pollution
penalties. Second, the government is supposed to increase the purchase subsidies
offered to farmers for using green agricultural chemicals and agricultural machinery
as well as include green chemical subsidies and agricultural machinery subsidies in
the ecological compensation system. This would encourage farmers to purchase green
agricultural chemicals and advanced agricultural machinery [65,66]. Finally, efforts
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 12 of 15

should be made to improve the awareness of environmental protection among agricul-

tural practitioners. This is essential for environment protection [67,68]. By publicizing
the knowledge about ecological and environmental protection through mass media,
the internet and other means, agricultural practitioners can better understand that
the excessive input of agricultural chemicals is one of the contributors to agricultural
carbon emissions. This is conducive to improving the ecological and environmental
awareness of agricultural practitioners, which prompts them to reduce agricultural
carbon emissions by adopting environmentally friendly technologies. From the per-
spective of farmers, improving the utilization efficiency of agricultural chemicals is a
potential solution to reducing agricultural carbon emission. According to the survey
conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China, the utilization
rate of chemical fertilizer for grain crops in China was only 37.8% in 2017, while that
of major European countries was about 65% in the same period, which indicates a sig-
nificant gap. Therefore, it is worth considering the popularization of various efficient
fertilization technologies such as soil testing, formulated fertilization, mechanical
fertilization, planting and fertilizing, so as to reduce the amount of chemical fertilizer
applied while improving the efficiency of chemical fertilizer utilization.
(2) It is suggested that the pace of urbanization can be accelerated to give full play to the
inhibitory effect of high urbanization on agricultural carbon emissions. According
to the above research, the impact of agricultural land transfer on agricultural carbon
emissions is constrained by the threshold of urbanization level. Given the high ur-
banization level, agricultural land transfer exerts an inhibitory effect on agricultural
carbon emissions. As for the potential negative effects of population mobility caused
by agricultural land transfer, they include economic and cultural aspects [69]. There-
fore, some measures may be suitable for promoting the high-quality improvement of
urbanization level through agricultural land transfer. First, the government is sup-
posed to play its role in organization and coordination, with various channels involved
in the prompt delivery of employment information to farmers. Meanwhile, it is crucial
to increase vocational training for farmers and improve their labor skills and overall
quality. This is significant to ensuring that farmers have the ability to perform non-
agricultural work and that non-agricultural labor meets market demand. Second, it is
necessary to deepen the reform of the registered residence system, accelerate the uni-
fied registration and management of urban and rural household registration, promote
the synchronous transformation of occupation and identity for non-agricultural em-
ployment farmers, reinforce the long-term guarantee mechanism for the citizenization
of migrant workers, fully recognize the citizenship of non-agricultural employment
farmers, and genuinely integrate non-agricultural employment farmers into the city.
Third, the government should put in place the corresponding social security system to
reduce potential risks for non-agricultural farmers [70], so as to resolve the problems
encountered by the urban farmers in medical care, housing and education received
by their children. In the meantime, as a basis for the survival of farmers, agricultural
land resources are exposed to certain survival risks for the main body of agricultural
land transfer. Therefore, it is essential to improve the effectiveness of rural social
security progressively to replace the social security function of rural land, establish
the employment security system for those farmers losing their land, help them to find
new jobs, and solve their concerns.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.T.; methodology and software, M.C. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was funded by the Social Science Foundation of China (21BGL288).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 13 of 15

Data Availability Statement: The sample data are sourced from the corresponding years of “China
Statistical Yearbook”, “China Rural Statistical Yearbook”, “China rural operation and management
statistical annual report”, and “China Agricultural Machinery Industry Yearbook”.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. An, R.; Zhu, G.H. Clustering of economic efficiency of urban energy carbon emissions based on decoupling theory. Energy Rep.
2022, 8, 9569–9575. [CrossRef]
2. Smith, P.; Bustamante, M.; Ahamad, H. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014.
3. Tian, C.S.; Chen, Y. Calculation of China’s inter provincial agricultural carbon emissions and evaluation of low-carbon level –
based on derived indicators and the application of TOPSIS method. J. Nat. Resour. 2021, 36, 395–410.
4. Ran, H.G.; Wang, J.H.; Wang, D.X. Study on the changing tendency and counter-measure of carbon emissions produced by
agricultural production in China. Issues Agric. Econ. 2011, 32, 32–38, 110–111.
5. Luo, X.; Ao, X.; Zhang, Z. Spatiotemporal variations of cultivated land use efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt based on
carbon emission constraints. J. Geogr. Sci. 2020, 30, 535–552. [CrossRef]
6. Bennetzen, E.H.; Smith, P.; Porter, J.R. Decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions from global agricultural production: 1970–2050.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 763–781. [CrossRef]
7. Peter, C.; Helming, K.; Nendel, C. Do greenhouse gas emission calculations from energy crop cultivation reflect actual agricultural
management practices?—A review of carbon footprint calculators. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 461–476. [CrossRef]
8. Hu, C.Z.; Huang, X.J.; Zhong, T.Y. Analysis of China’s Carbon Emission Characteristics and Dynamic Evolution. China’s Popul.
Resour. Environ. 2008, 3, 38–42.
9. Li, G.Z.; Li, Z.Z. Empirical analysis on decomposition of carbon emission factors of agricultural energy consumption in China:
Based on LMDI model. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2010, 10, 66–72.
10. Vita, K.S. The Impact of Macroeconomic Indicators on Carbon Emission in Indonesia. J. Perspekt. Pembiayaan Dan Pembang. Daerah.
2022, 10, 53–62.
11. Shen, L.Y.; Wu, Y.; Lou, Y.L. What Drives the Carbon Emission in the Chinese Cities?—A Case of Pilot Low Carbon City of Beijing.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 343–354. [CrossRef]
12. Gougoulias, C.; Clark, J.M.; Shaw, L.Z. Role of Soil Microbes in the Global Carbon Cycle: Tracking the Below-ground Microbial
Processing of Plant-derived Carbon for Manipulating Carbon Dynamics in Agricultural Systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94,
2362–2371. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Arora, V.K.; Boer, G.J.; Tatiana, T.M. Carbon–Concentration and Carbon–Climate Feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth System Models.
J. Clim. 2013, 26, 5289–5314. [CrossRef]
14. Zhao, Q.; Zhou, Y.L.; Fang, Q.S. Analysis of space-time evolution of carbon emissions in central China and its influencing factors.
J. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 1–11. [CrossRef]
15. Nyambuu, U.; Semmler, W. Climate Change and the Transition to a Low Carbon Economy—Carbon Targets and the Carbon
Budget. Econ. Model. 2020, 84, 367–376. [CrossRef]
16. Hidalgo, M.C.; Rodríguez, P.; Aumente, R. Energy and Carbon Emission Savings in Spanish Housing Air-conditioning Using
Solar Driven Absorption System. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2008, 28, 1734. [CrossRef]
17. Bertram, G. Tradeable Emmision Permits and the Control of Greenhouse Gases. J. Dev. Stud. 1992, 28, 423–446. [CrossRef]
18. Tian, Y.; Zhang, J.B.; Li, B. Research on China’s agricultural carbon emissions, measurement, time-space comparison and
decoupling effect. Resour. Sci. 2012, 34, 2097–2105.
19. Li, B.; Zhang, J.B.; Li, H.P. Temporal and spatial characteristics of China’s agricultural carbon emissions and decomposition of
influencing factors. China’s Popul. Resour. Environ. 2011, 21, 80–86.
20. Liu, Z.M.; Huang, X.J.; Lu, X.H. Prediction of China’s carbon neutral path under the shared socio-economic path. J. Geogr. 2022,
77, 2189–2201.
21. Gao, B.; Fang, J.; Lu, X.L. Study on the relationship between regional agricultural carbon emissions and economic growth
evolution and their emission reduction potential. Resour. Environ. Arid Areas 2017, 31, 13–18.
22. Jiang, S.L.; Lu, C.B. Externality and Heterogeneity of Environmental Regulation’s Impact on Carbon Emission Efficiency –
Analysis Based on Cluster Synergy of Productive Services. East China Econ. Manag. 2022, 9, 1–14.
23. Zhao, Y.H.; Wang, Z.T.; Zhan, W.X.; Gai, Z.X. Temporal and spatial differentiation characteristics and influencing factors of carbon
emissions from farmland use transformation in Heilongjiang Province. Southwest Agric. J. 2022, 10, 1–11.
24. Dai, X.W.; He, Y.Q.; Zhong, Q.B. A study on the driving factors and contributions of China’s agricultural energy consumption
and carbon emissions change based on Kaya identity expansion and LMDI index decomposition method. Chin. J. Ecol. Agric.
2015, 23, 1445–1454.
25. Li, K.Q.; Ma, D.D.; Li, Y.M. Analysis of driving factors and trend prediction of agricultural carbon emissions in Nanjing based on
STIRPAT model. Res. Sci. Technol. Manag. 2018, 38, 238–245.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 14 of 15

26. Li, H.; Li, W.; Yao, X.L. Research on spatial-temporal differentiation of agricultural carbon emission influencing factors based on
GWR model. Res. Sci. Technol. Manag. 2019, 39, 238–2451.
27. Xiong, C.H.; Chen, S.; Xu, L.T. Driving factors analysis of agricultural carbon emissions based on extended STIRPAT model of
Jiangsu Province, China. Growth Chang. 2020, 51, 1401–1416. [CrossRef]
28. Han, H.B.; Zhong, Z.Q.; Guo, Y. Coupling and decoupling effects of agricultural carbon emissions in China and their driving
factors. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 25280–25293. [CrossRef]
29. Hong, M.Y.; Zheng, L.N. Damage to farmers’ rights and interests in agricultural land transfer – economic analysis based on
bazel’s property rights theory. J. Hebei Univ. Econ. Trade 2019, 40, 14–20.
30. Lan, J.; Li, Q.M. Social multiplier effect of rural land transfer—Analysis of rural governance difficulties and farmers’ participation.
J. Cent. China Norm. Univ. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2021, 60, 59–68.
31. Zhang, L.; Feng, K.W. A study on the economic performance of the institutional change of rural land transfer—An Empirical
Analysis Based on the data of Zaozhuang City from 1958 to 2017. Price Theory Pract. 2018, 04, 138–142.
32. Cheng, X.Y.; Xin, G.X.; Chen, R.R. Impact of agricultural land transfer on agricultural ecosystem. Chin. J. Ecol. Agric. 2016, 24,
335–344.
33. Hu, H.; Yang, Y.B. Research on the application of chemical fertilizer by farmers from the perspective of factor substitution—Based
on the data of farmers at fixed observation points in rural areas. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2015, 03, 84–91.
34. Zheng, X.Y.; Xu, Z.G. Resource endowment constraint, factor substitution and induced technological change—Taking the
mechanization of grain production in China as an example. China Econ. Q. 2016, 16, 45–66.
35. Xu, H.X. Urban rural integration development, theoretical basis, realistic motivation and realization conditions. J. Nanjing Agric.
Univ. 2020, 20, 94–101.
36. Liao, L.W.; Long, H.L.; Ma, E.P. Changes in rural labor factors and cultivated land utilization efficiency. Econ. Geogr. 2021, 41,
148–155.
37. Schultz, T.W. The Source of Increasing Returns; Peking University Press: Beijng, China, 2001.
38. Zheng, J.G.; Zhang, R.X.; Zeng, F. Influence of agricultural land transfer on fertilizer input, a case study of Shandong Province.
Resour. Sci. 2021, 43, 921–931.
39. Zhu, P.X.; Su, M.; Yan, J. The influence of the scale and stability of transferred farmland management on Farmers’ fertilizer
input—A case study of rice production in four counties (cities) of Jiangsu Province. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. 2017, 17, 85–94, 158.
40. Han, J.B.; Liu, S.Y.; Zhang, S.F. Rural land ownership confirmation, land transfer and rural labor non-agricultural employment,
from the perspective of incomplete contract theory. Northwest Popul. 2019, 40, 11–22.
41. Besley, T. Property rights and investment incentives, theory and evidence from Ghana. J. Political Econ. 1995, 103, 903–937.
[CrossRef]
42. Qiu, H.G.; Liu, L.; Li, D.W. Business Scale, Land Right Stability and Land Productivity—Empirical Analysis Based on the Survey
Data at the Land Plot Level of Four Provinces in China. China Rural Econ. 2017, 06, 30–43.
43. Ying, R.Y.; He, Z.Z.; Zhou, N. Rural land ownership confirmation, property right status and long-term agricultural investment—A
reexamination based on a new round of ownership confirmation reform. China Rural Obs. 2018, 3, 110–127.
44. Yan, X.; Jin, J.Y.; Liang, M.Z. Yield increasing effect of chemical fertilizer and fertilizer utilization efficiency of major grain crops in
China. Soil 2017, 49, 1067–1077.
45. Yang, J.H. Research on the decoupling relationship between agricultural chemical input and agricultural economic growth—based
on the data of 6 provinces and 1 city in East China. J. Nat. Resour. 2017, 32, 1517–1527.
46. Liu, Q.; Xiao, H.F. Impact of agricultural land operation scale and financial support policy on agricultural carbon emissions.
Resour. Sci. 2020, 42, 1063–1073.
47. Deng, M.J.; Deng, J.J.; Liu, J.Y. Temporal and spatial evolution of carbon emissions and emission reduction potential of fertilizer
application for grain crops in China. Resour. Sci. 2016, 38, 534–544.
48. Liu, Y.; Liu, H.B. Characteristics, influencing factors and peak analysis of agricultural carbon emissions in Shandong Province.
Chin. J. Ecol. Agric. 2022, 30, 558–569.
49. Ding, B.G.; Yang, S.W.; Zhao, Y. Study on the spatio-temporal characteristics and decoupling effect of carbon emissions from the
use of cultivated land resources in China. China Land Sci. 2019, 33, 45–54.
50. Yang, Q.L.; Zhao, R.Q.; Zhao, T. The relationship between agricultural carbon emission efficiency and food security at county
level. China’s Agric. Resour. Zoning 2022, 5, 1–17.
51. Zhang, Z.G.; Yuan, Z.; Liu, X. Analysis of the decoupling effect between agricultural carbon emissions and economic growth
based on the perspective of input – Taking Henan Province as an example. Res. Water Soil Conserv. 2017, 24, 272–278.
52. Chen, Y.; Chen, W. Research on the relationship between agricultural mechanization, industrial upgrading and agricultural
carbon emissions—Empirical analysis based on dynamic panel data model. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2018, 5, 122–133.
53. Liu, Q.; Xiao, H.F. What is the logic of agricultural land operation scale affecting agricultural carbon emissions—Mediation of
factor input and regulation of cultural quality. Rural Econ. 2020, 5, 10–17.
54. Wen, Z.G.; Ye, B.J. Intermediary effect analysis—Method and model development. Prog. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 5, 731–745.
55. Christopher, D.N.; Joshua, P.; James, R. The effects of vocational interests on motivation, satisfaction, and academic performance,
Test of a mediated model. J. Vocat. Behav. 2021, 6, 103583.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13014 15 of 15

56. Kristopher, J.P.; Andrew, F.H. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple
mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891.
57. Hansen, B.E. Threshold effects in non- dynamic panels, Estimation, testing, and inference. J. Econom. 1999, 93, 345–368. [CrossRef]
58. Zhou, M.; Kuang, B.; Zhou, M. The Spatial and Temporal Evolution of the Coordination Degree in Regard to Farmland Transfer
and Cultivated Land Green Utilization Efficiency in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10208. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Zhu, Y.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Piao, H.L. Does agricultural mechanization improve agricultural environment efficiency? Evidence from
China’s planting industry. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 53673–53690. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Liao, M.L.; Du, T.T.; Wu, D.D. Factor structure, technical efficiency and Rural Revitalization. Fujian Forum 2018, 4, 182–187.
61. Deng, S.H.; Guo, L.H. Research on the impact of urbanization process on haze pollution in the Yangtze River Economic
Belt—Empirical Analysis Based on spatial panel model. Res. World 2019, 7, 36–44.
62. Xu, B.; Luo, L.Q.; Lin, B.Q. A dynamic analysis of air pollution emissions in China, Evidence from nonpara-metric additive
regression models. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 1, 346–358. [CrossRef]
63. Yadav, S.; Kumar, R.; Chandra, M.S. Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration and Carbon Pools in Rice Based Cropping Systems in
Indo-Gangetic Plains, An Overview. Int. Res. J. Pure Appl. Chem. 2020, 1, 122–136. [CrossRef]
64. Faisal, M.A.; Jun, L.; Miguel, I.G. A systems approach to carbon policy for fruit supply chains, carbon tax, technology innovation,
or land sparing? Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 767, 144211.
65. Konstantinos, Z.; Konstantinos, P. A Bilevel Linear Programming Model for Developing a Subsidy Policy to Minimize the
Environmental Impact of the Agricultural Sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7651.
66. Flavio, G. Rethinking the mineral fertilizer subsidy scheme to promote environmental protection in Italy. Outlook Agric. 2021, 50,
230–237.
67. Blooshi, L.S.; Ksiksi, T.S.; Gargoum, A.S.; Aboelenein, M. Climate Change and Environmental Awareness, a Study of Energy
Consumption among the Residents of Abu Dhabi, UAE. Perspect. Glob. Dev. Technol. 2019, 18, 582. [CrossRef]
68. Liski, A.H.; Koetse, M.K.; Metzger, M.J. Addressing awareness gaps in environmental valuation, choice experiments with citizens
in the Inner Forth, Scotland. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 2217–2229. [CrossRef]
69. Aragbonfoh, A.F.; Sodiq, S.J. The Nexus between Nigerian Migrants and the Future of Global Security; Springer International Publishing:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022.
70. Nina, V.U.; Halvard, B.; Neil, A.W. Human security of urban migrant populations affected by length of residence and environ-
mental hazard. J. Peace Res. 2021, 58, 50–66.